From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PfWHX-0001QD-0R for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:32:55 +0100 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2011 03:31:09 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,343,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="594417057" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.16.117]) ([10.255.16.117]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2011 03:31:08 -0800 From: Joshua Lock To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: References: <1295027350.14388.6527.camel@rex> <4D353F81.50301@xora.org.uk> <4D35C5C3.60205@mentor.com> <4D35FC8B.1090404@mentor.com> <4D36A64E.9060804@xora.org.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: <1295436662.2540.14.camel@scimitar> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 (2.32.1-1.fc14) Subject: Re: Yocto Project and OE - Where now? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:32:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 10:12 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2011/1/19 Graeme Gregory : > > >> I wholehearthy agree with the proposal that it is left to the package > >> maintainers discretion. > >> Wrt the GPLv2+ version. I suggest to reflect this in the name. > >> E.g. you could have samba and samba-gplv2 (or perhaps samba-gplv2 and > >> samba-gplv3). Then it immediately becomes obvious why there are two > >> versions. > >> Similarly with versions that became a lot fatter over time (which imho > >> is a good reason to keep the old version). > > I am totally against this idea, it just makes a total mess of the > > namespace. We have the ability to put comments in bitbake files use it. > > I don't think there are that many recipes for which this is relevant, > so the namespace clutter is limited. > Comments in bb files may work equally well. Problem is that those > comments are not written in the files. Surely that what the LICENSE field in the metadata is for? Aside: In Poky we have various features to ensure recipes have license information included, and functionality to blacklist packages of a certain license - these will doubtless be merged into oe-core too. Cheers, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Intel Open Source Technology Centre